I\'ll ask this one time. Billy, do you really want me to dive head first into comparing quarterbacks by efficienct rating? Really? Now think about this for a second, b/c I\'ll go through hundreds of numbers, and trust me, Brooks will not be higher than average. You found three guys. I can find three hundred.

Additionally, how is it possible that you and Saintfan whine and moan about how it\'s not fair to compare a QB playing TODAY to another one b/c the systems are different but it\'s OK to compare Brooks to guys who played 20 and 30 years ago when the enitre game and talent level were very different? Oh, right, b/c you found a few guys and used them to make your point. That\'s why.

One more thing - a low efficiency rating does not mean a QB is wrong for his system. Playing style does. McNabb, for example, is a playmaker. He makes a lot happen on his own, and for that he gives up efficiency. Gannon, on the other hand, cannot do much on his own, and as a result, he is very efficient. Teams with lots of weapons should have an efficient QB - they already have playmakers. Teams with few weapons should have playmakers at QB. Get it? That\'s why Atlanta, Philly, and Minnesota have athletic, inefficient playmakers, and teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis have immobile efficient quarterbacks. Is that really that hard to understand? B/c I\'ve explained it to you about a thousand times and you still don\'t seem to get it.

One more thing - a low efficiency rating does not mean a QB is wrong for his system. Playing style does. McNabb, for example, is a playmaker. He makes a lot happen on his own, and for that he gives up efficiency. Gannon, on the other hand, cannot do much on his own, and as a result, he is very efficient. Teams with lots of weapons should have an efficient QB - they already have playmakers. Teams with few weapons should have playmakers at QB. Get it? That\'s why Atlanta, Philly, and Minnesota have athletic, inefficient playmakers, and teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis have immobile efficient quarterbacks. Is that really that hard to understand? B/c I\'ve explained it to you about a thousand times and you still don\'t seem to get it.

WhoDat --

So now it\'s playing style eh? Not completion percentage or QB effiency rating that you\'ve been driving in the ground for the better part of 4 months. Unbelieveable!! That\'s all I have to say is Unbelieveable.

McNabb hasn\'t been much of a playmaker so far this year Whodat...wanna bench his azz?

You rekon Aikman was a playmaker? You rekon he had some weapons? How \'bout \'ol Elway up there in Denver? You rekon HE was a playmaker? You rekon HE has some weapons?

This thing with McNabb was brought up after week one for ONE reason Whodat, and it wasn\'t to compare anything other than YOUR reaction to poor play...deisgned to prove that for ANY OTHER QB IN THE FREAKIN LEAGUE you\'re willing to make an excuse.....A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y but BROOKS.

No Billy, QB efficiency and completion percentages are a good way to compare quarterbacks. However, I\'m not saying that any QB is wrong for a system b/c of efficiency rating. Style of play is a big part of how a QB fits into a system.

Now you two want to compare those stats? OK.

I looked at the CURRENT starting QBs in the league that have at least 2+ years of starting experience (since Brooks does not himself have 3 full years yet). About a third of the current starters in the league were ruled out due to too little time as a starer, and I don\'t want Billy crying when guys like Pennington and Bulger have 100+ efficiency ratings in far fewer games than Brooks (yeah - less games, less time to mature, still better ratings - and you know Billy would moan). I also did not compare their first three years, as Billy did not, but rather the first three season from the time that they became the starter (as Billy did with Brooks). Here are the results:

Of the CURRENT starting QBs in the league, with at least 2+ years of starting experience (23 total players I think), Aaron Brooks ranks 13th. He\'s not even in the top ten against CURRENT starters. Throw in guys like Bulger, Pennington, and Holcomb and he\'s even lower. Now, do you two want me to go back another 30 years!?! Really? I\'ll bet he\'s not in the top 50 or maybe even 100.